Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

TODAY. In talking about nuclear matters, why is money the only game in town?

I’m constantly reading nuclear news items. And yes, I am getting bored with all the money stuff. I know it’s important. I know that money is very very important, especially these days with the cost of living on everyone’s mind.(Well, perhaps not the 1% – the very wealthy)

It must be so important. There’s America’s small nuclear reactor dream gone bung, because NuScale’s smrs cost too much. There are the bankruptcies Westinghouse- and those near to bankruptcy – Toshiba, EDF, and the companies with a chequered past e,g.- SNC-Lavalin, Areva (reborn as Orano),

There are the financial contortions going on in Britain, with its very dodgy “Great British Nuclear”. The USA agonising over the ginormous costs of the still uncompleted Vogtle NPP. And France with Macron’s delusional scheme for many big and small reactors to be built very fast, -while they can’t afford to fix up, or to close down, their existing fleet of aging reactors.

There are the “minor” countries also agonising over how to pay for their nuclear schemes – Indonesia, Bulgaria, Sweden, Kenya, Ghana………

But of course, Russia China, North Korea, are fine with nuclear economics – or so I’m told by some Australian nuclear zealots who are NRB (- not real bright). Yeah well, if you need a dictatorship to make nuclear power economic, I guess that’s the way to go. (But are we sure it’s all that good in those countries, anyway?)

But anyway, yes, I’m wondering why the media doesn’t seems to be fussing about the radioactive pollution of our planet, and the risks to health, especially of pregnant women, children, and everybody. Big accidents are rare – but they do happen , smaller accidents happen, too. And the connection with weapons, war, the nightmare possibility of omnicide – that’s a bit of a worry too. Of course indigenous people and those silly anti-nuclear activists make a fuss, but they don’t count, do they?

I guess it is all symptomatic of our era, our prevailing culture, the worship of not just profit, but ever-increasing profit.

Still, perhaps I should not complain. Worrying about money might be the only thing saving us from nuclear follies. And I note that when they do their earnest costing of nuclear power – they talk only about building costs and electricity prices – and it’s already too expensive! What if they also counted the cost of nuclear waste disposal, and a thousand years of securing it?

March 20, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Chief scientist backs renewables, calls nuclear power ‘expensive’

Q+A / By Jason Whittaker 18 Mar 24

  • In short: Chief Scientist Cathy Foley says nuclear energy is “expensive” and the energy debate must be guided by research.
  • Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has criticised the CSIRO, which says renewables like solar and wind are cheaper.
  • What’s next? Retired Major General Gus McLachlan says the purchase of nuclear-powered submarines is a test of leadership.

Australia’s chief scientist has backed a renewables-led path to net zero emissions over the “expensive technology” of nuclear energy.

After the federal opposition puts nuclear-fired power generation back on the national agenda, Cathy Foley told Q+A that any assessment of energy sources should be guided by evidence.

“If you look at the reports that have been done, it’s [nuclear power] an expensive technology and it’s one where it would take some time to build up the capability to do that in Australia,” Dr Foley said.

“As chief scientist, it’s not for me to actually say what the government should do.

“What we should be doing is looking at the evidence and the information that is available and making sure that we make good decisions based on all the different things we have to take into account.”

Last week, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton attacked research from the CSIRO on the higher cost of nuclear power over renewables such as solar and wind, prompting a public defence from the nation’s leading science institution.

“It’s not relied on. It’s not a genuine piece of work,” Mr Dutton said on Friday, calling the research “discredited”.

In response, CSIRO chief executive Douglas Hilton said in a statement: “I will staunchly defend our scientists and our organisation against unfounded criticism.”

Dr Foley spent 15 years at the CSIRO before becoming the nation’s chief scientist.

Asked by Q+A host Patricia Karvelas if nuclear power should be on the table, she said: “I don’t think we should be making that decision without getting the information that’s needed.”

“So at the moment the plan is to be able to get to zero emissions using renewables and batteries …

“Australia has got a fantastic situation where we have so much energy from wind and solar that we should be making the most of that.

“We have the potential to have renewables based on solar panels and wind and batteries and that is the pathway that the government has been putting forward and is on a plan to get there by getting to zero emissions.”

The power of ‘little suns’

Leading American physicist Bryan Greene said nuclear is a “wonderful energy source” — but it’s the next generation of the technology (nuclear fusion) that offers the most promise.

“Once that is on the table, everything changes,” the Columbia University professor told Q+A.

“That will be the approach that will take over, say, from 2050 or 2060 onwards.”

Current nuclear fission technology — splitting large atoms to generate energy — leaves radioactive waste and the danger of reactor meltdowns……………………more https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-19/chief-scientist-cathy-foley-nuclear-expensive-backs-renewables/103602312

March 20, 2024 Posted by | business | Leave a comment

Dutton’s bid for nuclear power: hoax or reckless endangerment?

“In the last few months, we’ve seen a bill introduced into the Parliament by the Labor Government that legalises the acceptance of nuclear waste from the UK and US and provides the Government with the power to nominate any place in Australia as a nuclear waste site, with no requirement to consult with local communities or other interested groups.”

In the bigger picture, AUKUS depends upon a gamble that nuclear power will be the naval fuel of the future. And the even bigger gamble that submarines are not yet obsolete.

But beyond the tactics of Labor-baiting and the politics of diversion ……. lurks the original – and only – economic rationale of nuclear power – as an adjunct to a nuclear arms industry.

March 18, 2024, by: David Tyler https://theaimn.com/duttons-nuclear-dream-is-a-dead-cat-on-the-table-to-distract-us-from-his-dunkley-debacle/

It’s incredible. Such is our love-in with Peter “Junkyard” Dutton, our former Border Overlord, who used to play the bad cop dispensing rough justice–doing whatever it took to keep us safe-that today, he’s being cheered by most of the press gallery for reckless endangerment in his punt on nuclear energy.

Is it just to please his sponsor, Gina Rinehart and other richly attractive mining oligarchs who will make a few extra billion out of delaying the end of coal-fired power generation? Even if they do hasten the end of the world, they do get to star in their own perverted, planet-destroying mother of all snuff movies?

Or… brace yourself- does “Dutts” blunt truth and other fiction’s pin up boy-harbour


And what a boon for democracy. Voters choose between the pro-mining, colliery-opening, Labor Party and the pro-mining right-wing rump of a moribund Liberal Party, only in the race because of its secret agreement with the National Party, a mob of pro-mining, faux populists who pose as saviours of The Bush and its battlers, such as Riverview Old Boy, Barnaby Thomas Gerald Joyce’s Weatherboard Nine.

Or Bob Katter’s family which includes the incredibly successful arms manufacturer, son-in-law Rob Nioa.

ulterior motives?

Of course. A whiff of Emu Field, Montebello and Maralinga on the campaign trail helps with Coalition branding and product differentiation. “I’m with nuclear, stupid” would be a killer of an election slogan. Albo and Dutts could get together to whip up a referendum for the next federal democracy sausage BBQ. Besides, no-one in the nuclear power side hustle isn’t also itching to develop his or her own nuclear weapon cycle. Nuclear energy only makes sense if you are a nuclear arms manufacturer.

Nuclear is also a feint in the climate wars. Let’s talk tactics. Team Dutton can say that Labor is on the right track but has “no credible pathway” unless you have nuclear energy in the brew, firming up your mix. The Liberal Party plays the front end of the Coalition panto horse; the Nationals bring up the rear.

And just as he did after defeat in Aston, Dutton dashes into nuclear after his Dunkley debacle. Note he’s now a big reactor man, having got the email that small modular reactors are scarce as rocking-horse manure. It’s a revolutionary turn. A year or so ago, Dutts opposed, “the establishment of big nuclear facilities”. But being a conservative in Australian politics means, you don’t have to explain or apologise.

-ADVERTISEMENT-

Nor do you have to heed our scientists. “… the CSIRO has made clear, large reactors are too large for our small grids, and small reactors are still unproven commercially.”

Smear them. Say it’s a discredited study.


Sean Kelly sees Dutton’s pro-nuclear vision as a way of buying unity. Nobody on Dutton’s team thinks it’s a real policy, he claims, and it’s a long-term fantasy, so they won’t buck Dutton’s wilful stupidity. He’s sniping at CSIRO, too, which always wins friends amongst a growing anti-science brigade, a resource tapped into shamelessly by such figures as, “planter saint”, Barnaby Joyce; off his nut about the “green peril”. The former deputy PM also calls windmills, “filth” whilst renewable energy is a “swindle”.

The Coalition attack on CSIRO parallels its harassment of a now cowed ABC, on which it inflicted a barrage of criticism, funding cuts and Morrison’s captain’s pick of Ita Buttrose as chair. Cutbacks in the CSIRO have also taken their toll but their CEO, Professor Doug Hilton publicly rebukes Dutton.

“For science to be useful and for challenges to be overcome it requires the trust of the community. Maintaining trust requires scientists to act with integrity. Maintaining trust also requires our political leaders to resist the temptation to disparage science.”

Kelly might add that the Coalition is riven by at least ten factions, post-Morrison, and has rivals hatching plots of helping their leader by taking his job away from him. One of these, with some experience of edged weapons, is former SAS Patrol Commander, Captain Andrew Hastie who must have been cheered when in 2017 the AFP cleared of war crimes, an SAS soldier who cut the hands off two suspected Taliban fighters. Handy Andy was in command of some other soldiers at the scene. Hastie’s mentor is none other than party kingmaker, Big Mining Shill and fellow happy clapper, the Nationals’ John Anderson.

A spill now could avoid some bloodletting in the next federal election, a surgical strike, perhaps.

Rex Patrick sees Peter Dutton’s move as a “nasty” political wedge given that the federal Labor government has already signed us on to Morrison’s AUKUS which guarantees a small modular nuclear reactor inside a submarine moored near you if you happen to live close to HMAS Stirling Naval Base in Perth, the Osborne Naval Shipyards in Adelaide, SA or the yet to be opened mystery envelope containing only three options, Sydney Harbour, Wollongong/ Port Kembla or Newcastle.

Hint. The Royal Australian Navy berths in Sydney Harbour.

Moreover, the disposing of nuclear waste is also well in hand, notes Patrick.

“In the last few months, we’ve seen a bill introduced into the Parliament by the Labor Government that legalises the acceptance of nuclear waste from the UK and US and provides the Government with the power to nominate any place in Australia as a nuclear waste site, with no requirement to consult with local communities or other interested groups.”

In the bigger picture, AUKUS depends upon a gamble that nuclear power will be the naval fuel of the future. And the even bigger gamble that submarines are not yet obsolete.

Yet even today it’s uneconomic and fraught with a perplex of disposal and safety issues. Dutts the Kiwi Bikie Gangster Deporter, Dual Citizenship-Stripper, Dole-bludger-buster, or the African Gang vigilante; dog-whistling racism, fear and division, demonising the other, is as complex as the next bloke. But he is not a big ideas man. Fizza Turnbull has never heard Peter propose a single constructive idea.

Dutton’s mentor, John Howard was rarely troubled by big ideas either. But now, Dutton is calling for “a mature debate™” on a nuclear energy, we don’t need, can’t afford, could never rely on and can’t fuel. We’d be importing expensive fuel rods we can’t make at home for reactors which would never be built in time (without a slave labour workforce like the UAE) to replace our rapidly clapped-out coal-fired plant

Continue reading →

March 20, 2024 Posted by | politics | Leave a comment

Australia’s big electricity generators say nuclear not viable for at least a decade

AGL Energy, Alinta, EnergyAustralia and Origin Energy say they will remain focused on renewables despite Coalition support for nuclear reactors

Peter Hannam, Guardian. 19 Mar 24

Australia’s big private electricity generators have dismissed nuclear energy as a viable source of power for their customers for at least a decade.

They say they will remain focused on developing renewable sources as coal and gas plants exit the grid.

The comments – from AGL Energy, Alinta, EnergyAustralia and Origin Energy – follow an announcement by the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, that the Coalition would back both large-scale and small modular nuclear reactors (SMR) as a way to cut electricity prices and increase grid reliability.

Energy Australia, whose Hong Kong-listed owner CLP currently operates two large nuclear power stations in mainland China, said the company was “committed to Australia’s clean energy transformation, reducing emissions as quickly and affordably as possible while maintaining system reliability”…………………………………………

NSW’s chief scientist, Hugh Durrant-Whyte, dismissed the comparisons by nuclear energy advocates of places such as Ontario, Canada. That country had spent decades building a nuclear industry employing 70,000 people.

“Nobody in this country has even the faintest idea how to build a nuclear power plant,” Durrant-Whyte, a former nuclear adviser to the UK government, told NSW upper house estimates earlier this month.  https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/mar/19/australias-big-electricity-generators-say-nuclear-not-viable-for-at-least-a-decade

March 20, 2024 Posted by | business | Leave a comment

A chance to break the nuclear links – Kate Hudson, CND

This is about the UK. But wow! How much does it apply to Australia? Even more so than in the UK, America is both placing its military targets in many places in Australia, and continuing to drag Australia into unnecessary wars, And the next will be against China.

,
 https://labouroutlook.org/2024/03/17/a-chance-to-break-the-nuclear-links-kate-hudson-cnd/

“It’s just not possible for the UK to have an independent foreign policy, or defence and security policies, if it remains attached at the hip to the US nuclear programme.”

By Kate Hudson, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND)
Whoever is in the White House after the upcoming presidential election, one thing is clear: Britain has to break its ‘special nuclear relationship’ with the US. We’re all familiar with the so-called ‘special relationship’, basically tying Britain into really bad foreign policy decisions. But not so many people know about the US-UK Mutual Defence
Agreement (MDA) – the world’s most extensive nuclear sharing agreement.

Known in full as the ‘Agreement between the UK and the USA for cooperation in the Uses of Atomic Energy for Mutual Defence Purposes’, the treaty initially established an agreement between both countries to exchange classified information to develop their respective nuclear weapon systems.

At the start, the MDA prohibited the transfer of nuclear weapons, but an amendment in 1959 allowed for the transfer of nuclear materials and equipment between both countries up to a certain deadline.


This amendment is extended through a renewal of the treaty every ten years, most recently in2014 – without any parliamentary debate or vote. The British public and parliamentarians initially found out about that extension and ratification when President Obama informed the United States Congress.

Renewing such agreements on the nod, without transparency or accountability, is never a good thing. When it ties us so tightly to nuclear cooperation with the White House this is an even greater cause for concern. The time has come to really vigorously oppose this Agreement.

It also puts us at odds with our commitments under the NPT: the MDA confirms an indefinite commitment by the US and UK to collaborate on nuclear weapons technology and violates both countries’ obligations as signatories to the NPT. The NPT states that countries should undertake ‘to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to… nuclear disarmament’.


Rather than working together to get rid of their nuclear weapons, the UK and US are collaborating on further advancing their nuclear arsenals. Indeed, a 2004 legal advice paper by Rabinder Singh QC and Professor Christine Chinkin concluded that it is ‘strongly arguable that the renewal of the Mutual Defence Agreement is in breach of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty’, as it implies ‘continuation and indeed enhancement of thenuclear programme, not progress towards its discontinuation’.

On every level the MDA must be challenged. It’s just not possible for the UK to have an independent foreign policy, or defence and security policies, if it remains attached at the hip to the US nuclear programme. When the US seems hell-bent on taking us into war after war, unquestioning allegiance from the UK cannot continue.

The MDA is up for renewal again this year. Now is the time to start asking the questions, raising the protest,and making the case for independence. It’s time for the special nuclear relationship to end. Watch this space!

March 20, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Mainstream climate scientists run the risk of becoming the new climate deniers.

 “Executive Summary”

  1. The speed with which the climate is now changing is faster than (almost) all scientists thought possible.
  2. There is now zero prospect of holding the average temperature increase this century to below 1.5°C; even 2°C is beginning to slip out of reach. The vast majority of climate scientists know this, but rarely if ever give voice to this critically important reality.
  3. At the same time, the vast majority of people still haven’t a clue about what’s going on – and what this means for them and everything they hold dear.
  4. The current backlash against existing (already wholly inadequate) climate measures is also accelerating – and will cause considerable political damage in 2024. Those driving this backlash represent the same old climate denial that has been so damaging over so many years.
  5. The science-based institutions on which we depend to address this crisis have comprehensively failed us. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is incapable of telling the whole truth about accelerating climate change; the Conference of the Parties (under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) has been co-opted by the fossil fuel lobby to the point of total corruption.
  6. By not calling out these incontrovertible realities, mainstream scientists are at risk of becoming the new climate deniers.


more https://www.jonathonporritt.com/mainstream-climate-science-the-new-denialism/

March 20, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Space tourists and crew suffer high radiation risks – regulation is needed to protect them.

exposure to elevated levels of ionising radiation, such as those possible during space weather events, can potentially cause damage to DNA. The risk of space travel therefore ranges from a minor increase in health defects to serious health implications such as cancers.

The space tourism industry is currently not fully aware of the radiation risks, we discovered. It is instead relying on incomplete “informed consent” for non-crew participants.

The Conversation, March 19, 2024 , Chris Rees, Postgraduate Researcher of Space Risk Engineering, University of Surrey

In a decade or two, journeys into space could become as normal [really?]as transatlantic flights. In particular, the number of humans travelling into space with the help of commercial companies, such as Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin, will increase significantly.

But such travel comes with huge radiation risks. Sudden changes in space weather, such as solar flares, for example, could have significant health implications for crew and passengers. Now our recent paper, from the University of Surrey, Foot Anstey LLP Space and Satellite Team, has found that current legislation and regulation don’t do enough to protect space tourists and crew.

Changes in space weather could expose space tourists to radiation doses in excess of the recommended maximum 1 millisievert (mSv) yearly uptake for a member of the public and 20mSv yearly for those working with radiation. Research at the University of Surrey shows that during an extreme space weather event, flight participants could receive doses in excess of 100mSv.

Current legislation and regulation focusing on potential radiation exposure for space tourists is limited and largely untested. There is a heavy focus on conventional non-radiation risk and wider safety, with guidance stemming from regulation of normal commercial flights. However, these are significantly different to space tourism enterprises.

Similarly, the law around space flights and their associated risk liability is complex. Space law incorporates a mix of international law (such as international agreements, treaties and conventions), domestic legislation and guidance.

Cancer risk

Exposure to low levels of background natural radiation is part of everyday life. Most people are not aware of this exposure and the potential risks to our health. For example, an 0.08mSv effective dose from a commercial flight from the UK to the US.

However, exposure to elevated levels of ionising radiation, such as those possible during space weather events, can potentially cause damage to DNA. The risk of space travel therefore ranges from a minor increase in health defects to serious health implications such as cancers.

There has been significant risk assessment of radiation exposure on Earth; for example in the nuclear industry. This is unlike the space tourism industry, which is still in its infancy.

Previous research has focused on the potential risk assessment for astronauts from radiation exposure and long duration missions outside low-Earth orbit. But this does not consider risks for those on short trips to space as tourists. Thus, there is still significant work to be done to assess the unique risk for space tourist flights and the supporting guidance and regulation.

Any existing regulation, such as the UK Air Navigation Order and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) space flight regulations, that is applicable to potential space flights focuses on crew, rather than paying passengers.

The space tourism industry is currently not fully aware of the radiation risks, we discovered. It is instead relying on incomplete “informed consent” for non-crew participants. The current regulation for the industry therefore places the risk burden firmly on the space tourist. We argue more legislation and regulation are needed.

Our recommendations

We made a series of recommendations in our report. But they are advisory. They are intended for the industry and regulators to consider as the space tourism sector continues to develop, particularly the FAA and the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)………………………………… more https://theconversation.com/space-tourists-and-crew-suffer-high-radiation-risks-regulation-is-needed-to-protect-them-225693

March 20, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Japan finishes first-year ocean discharge of nuclear-tainted wastewater amid backlash

“All fishermen are against ocean dumping. The contaminated water has flowed into what we fishermen call ‘the sea of treasure’, and the process will last for at least 30 years,“

“There is no good reason to dump radioactive materials into the ocean. There is no reason to just dilute them and flush them away,“

https://thesun.my/world/japan-finishes-first-year-ocean-discharge-of-nuclear-tainted-wastewater-amid-backlash-PD12227910 18 Mar 24,

TOKYO: Despite opposition and concern from at home and abroad, Japan’s crippled Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant has finished its initial year of discharging nuclear-contaminated wastewater into the ocean, according to the plant’s operator, said Xinhua.

As per the initial plan, approximately 31,200 tons of wastewater, containing radioactive tritium, was released into the ocean since the discharge started in August 2023, with each round of discharge carried out for about two weeks. Earlier this week, International Atomic Energy Agency Director-General Rafael Grossi emphasised continued efforts in monitoring Japan’s ocean discharge of nuclear-contaminated wastewater from the crippled plant, following his first visit to Fukushima prefecture since the discharge started.

Stressing that the discharge marks merely the initial phase of a long process, Grossi said that “much effort will be required in the lengthy process ahead,“ and reiterated the organisation’s stance on maintaining vigilance throughout the process.

While the Japanese government and TEPCO have asserted the safety and necessity of the discharge, concerns have been raised by neighbouring countries and local stakeholders regarding environmental impacts.

“All fishermen are against ocean dumping. The contaminated water has flowed into what we fishermen call ‘the sea of treasure’, and the process will last for at least 30 years,“ said Haruo Ono, a fisherman in the town of Shinchi in Fukushima.

“There is no good reason to dump radioactive materials into the ocean. There is no reason to just dilute them and flush them away,“ said the man in his 70s.

“Is it really necessary, in the first place, to dump what has been stored in tanks into the sea? How can we say it’s ‘safe’ when the discharged water clearly consists of harmful radioactive substances? I think the government and TEPCO must provide a solid answer,“ said Chiyo Oda, a resident of Fukushima’s Iwaki city.

Concerns were fuelled among the Japanese public over the recent leakage of contaminated water from pipes at the Fukushima plant. – Bernama, Xinhua

March 20, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

 Nuclear news – week to 18 March

Some bits of good news.  Notable wins in climate and environmental justice.   Scotland made rewilding progress.  The Danish City Reimagining Reuse.    

TOP STORIES. Why the US is trying to imprison Assange: Report from inside the Court. 

Reversing Europe’s and Australia’s slide into irrelevance & insecurity – National Press Club of Australia speech- Yanis Varoufakis. 

There is no such thing as a “nuclear waste-eating” reactor . 

Nuclear industry wants Canada to lift ban on reprocessing plutonium, despite proliferation risks. 

Cold turkeys: The demise of nuclear power. 

Conditions inside Fukushima’s melted nuclear reactors still unclear 13 years after disaster struck – also at https://nuclear-news.net/2024/03/14/3-a-conditions-inside-fukushimas-melted-nuclear-reactors-still-unclear-13-years-after-disaster-struck/

Climate. ‘Greenhushing’ Is On the Rise as Companies Go Silent on Climate Pledges.

Nuclear. Australia media – normally focussed on football, has a spasm about nuclear. Rest of the anglophone world gives climate, nuclear, a nod, amongst gaffes of UK royalty, and fashion, celebrities and sport. Gaza gets a mention, too,

Noel’s notes. Julian Assange, atrocities, nuclear war, AI, “Oppenheimer”, and the whole damn thing. AUKUS nuclear pact – a lame duck?         Nuclear power and the ignorance of journalists – it’s almost criminal.

nb. Huge number of articles on nuclear in the Australian media. From next week, I will cut them back to just a representative few.


*******************************************

 AUSTRALIA. (There are more articles than this – but I had to stop!)

NUCLEAR ISSUES

ARTS and CULTURE. The ideology of war in Ukraine and Israel.ECONOMICS. HSBC leads Sizewell C investment push as time ticks on final investment decision.
NuScale nuclear power is among Top 5 Industrials Stocks That May Fall Off A Cliff In Q1.		EMPLOYMENT, Dounreay workers vote on strike action after pay talks stall,
MEDIA.
 Hollywood stars put their name to a good message, but it’s the messengers who are problematic.
Film poses moral questions about 2011 Fukushima disaster displacement . The Film RADIOACTIVE: The women of Three Mile Island will start streaming on Apple TV and Amazon Prime Video from March 12. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Is3jlNhicFY 

Keep Your Money Out of Nukes! Anti-Nuclear Financial Fitness w/Domini’s Mary Beth Gallagher: PODCAST.
UN report finds Israel deliberately targeted journalists – Reuters.

OPPOSITION to NUCLEAR . Bridgwater activists shine light on nuclear power in UK.
POLITICS.Japan’s Nuclear Energy Policy Disaster. Japan Ramps Up Drive to Restart World’s Biggest Nuclear Plant.

Ralph Nader: Open Letter to President Biden 3.12.24. Decision time Democrats: Oppose Biden’s genocide in Gaza or tacitly support it.

UK Steps Up Sizewell Nuclear Push With State-Backed Loans. UK’s Spring budget a ‘myopic sop’ to nuclear obsessives. UK government plans to block foreign control of newspapers – what about foreign control of Sizewell nuclear project ?The U.S. Is Betting Big on Small Nuclear Reactors (done up with green paint)		POLITICS INTERNATIONAL and DIPLOMACY. French president Emmanuel Macron tells Putin ‘WE are a nuclear power and WE are ready’ in latest WW3 rhetoric.

As ‘Oppenheimer’ wins big, we should worry about lowering of nuclear thresholds.
PROTESTS. In pre-election messaging, Putin less strident on nuclear war.

PUBLIC OPINION. 
‘Don’t hold your breath’ – people living in Wylfa’s shadow have say on nuclear development plans.

SAFETY. Incidents. Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant reports shelling by Ukraine army 
Shelling continues near Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Station.

Observing the 45th Anniversary of the Worst U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Accident.

SECRETS and LIES.
 The International Atomic Energy Agency recruiting spies?

SPACE. EXPLORATION, WEAPONS.
Musk’s SpaceX is building spy satellite network for US intelligence agency, sources say

SPINBUSTER. Exposing myths about building French nuclear power.
IAEA director’s visit to Japan widely questioned, seeks to downplay nuclear water dumping.
TECHNOLOGY. La Hague reprocessing plant: expansion and continued operation until at least 2100.
WAR and CONFLICT. Putin warns again that Russia is ready to use nuclear weapons if its sovereignty is threatened.

Will Biden’s, NATO’s military personnel in Ukraine cross the last red line to Armageddon?

Netanyahu approves Rafah ground invasion, despite Biden opposition.

War Games in Arctic: What’s Driving the West’s New Passion?


WEAPONS and WEAPONS SALES. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Paves Way for Increase in Production in Commercial Reactors of Tritium for Nuclear Weapons.

Huge UK £286bn nuclear submarine deal with US at risk for one reason warns ex Navy chief.

EU to use Russian assets to buy arms for Ukraine – Scholz.

March 19, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Turnbull says Australia ‘mugged by reality’ on Aukus deal as US set to halve submarine build

“Australian taxpayers should not be footing the bill for America’s dockyards.

We are on the hook to the tune of $3bn as soon as next year as a downpayment for subs that might never arrive and be useless on delivery,”

Former PM says the reality is the US will not make their submarine deficit worse by giving or selling submarines to Australia

Amy Remeikis, Wed 13 Mar 2024 ,  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/13/turnbull-says-australia-mugged-by-reality-on-aukus-deal-as-us-set-to-halve-submarine-build

Australian taxpayers should not be footing the bill for America’s dockyards.

We are on the hook to the tune of $3bn as soon as next year as a downpayment for subs that might never arrive and be useless on delivery,”

The former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull said Australia has been “mugged by reality” over the Aukus submarine deal after the US announced it will halve the number of submarines it will build next year, throwing the Australia end of the agreement into doubt.

With the US president, Joe Biden, continuing to face a hostile Congress, the Pentagon budget draft request includes construction of just one Virginia-class nuclear submarine for 2025.

Under the Aukus agreement, production is meant to be ramped up to ensure Australia will have access to at least three Virginia-class submarines from the US in the 2030s. That is to fill a “capability gap” before nuclear-powered submarines to be built in Adelaide enter into service from the 2040s.

The prime minister, Anthony Albanese, played down the impact of the US budget announcement, insisting that “our plans are very clear”.

“We have an agreement that was reached with the United States and the UK,” Albanese told reporters in Darwin on Wednesday. “That legislation went through the US Congress last year. That was a product of a lot of hard work.”

The defence minister, Richard Marles, said earlier that the US remained committed to the deal.

“As we approach the one-year anniversary of Aukus, Australia, the United States and United Kingdom remain steadfast in our commitment to the pathway announced last March, which will see Australia acquire conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines,” he said.

“All three Aukus partners are working at pace to integrate our industrial bases and to realise this historic initiative between our countries.”

Greens senator David Shoebridge, who has been critical of the Aukus deal from the start, said the US budget announcement was the beginning of the end of Aukus.

“When the US passed the law to set up Aukus, they put in kill switches, one of which allowed the US to not transfer the submarines if doing so would ‘degrade the US undersea capabilities’. Budgeting for one submarine all but guarantees this,” he said on X.

4/ The failure is almost too big to wrap your head around.

We are providing billions of dollars to the US, have given up an independent foreign policy and made Australia a parking lot for US weapons. In exchange, we get nothing.

Nothing but a big target and empty pockets.— David Shoebridge (@DavidShoebridge) March 12, 2024

The US budget does include increased spending on the submarine industrial base, which was a key component of the Aukus pillar one deal, as it laid the groundwork to increase production in the coming years.

But Turnbull, an architect of the French submarine deal which was unceremoniously dumped by the Morrison government in favour of the Aukus deal, said Australia was now at the mercy of the United States for a key part of its defence strategy.

He said that the US needed to increase submarine production to meet its own needs before it was able to transfer boats to Australia, but were now only producing about half as many that were needed for the US navy and were struggling to maintain the boats they held, due to labour shortages.

“What does that mean for Australia? It means because the Morrison government, adopted by Albanese, has basically abandoned our sovereignty in terms of submarines, we are completely dependent on what happens in the United States as to whether we get them now,” he told ABC radio.

“The reality is the Americans are not going to make their submarine deficit worse than it is already by giving or selling submarines to Australia and the Aukus legislation actually sets that out quite specifically.skip past newsletter promotion

“So you know, this is really a case of us being mugged by reality. I mean, there’s a lot of Aukus cheerleaders, and anyone that has any criticism of Aukus is almost described as being unpatriotic. We’ve got to be realistic here.”

The ALP grassroots activist group, Labor Against War, want the Albanese government to freeze Aukus payments to the US so as not to “underwrite the US navy industrial shipyards”.

The national convenor of Labor Against War, Marcus Strom, said Australian taxpayers should not be footing the bill for America’s dockyards.

We are on the hook to the tune of $3bn as soon as next year as a downpayment for subs that might never arrive and be useless on delivery,” he said.

“This Labor government managed to junk Scott Morrison’s tax plan. Why would it be so stupid to continue with his war plan?”

While the Pentagon has sought to assure Australia its submarine production will be back on track by 2028, the looming threat of Donald Trump returning to the White House has raised further concerns the deal will be scuttled.

“On Aukus pillar 1 we are effectively in conflict with the needs of the US navy, and you know as well as I do the American government, when it comes to a choice between the needs of the US navy and the Australian navy, are always going to back their own,” Turnbull said.

Marles has previously denied Aukus will erode Australia’s sovereignty. In a speech to parliament last year, Marles said Australia would “always make sovereign, independent decisions on how our capabilities are employed”.

Additional reporting by Daniel Hurst

March 19, 2024 Posted by | weapons and war | Leave a comment

Nuclear energy debate ‘many years’ away: Qld Deputy Opposition leader

 https://www.ntnews.com.au/news/national/nuclear-energy-debate-many-years-away-qld-deputy-opposition-leader/video/1f0309603f7dbfdfb9f321d128ec63fe 18 Mar 24

Queensland Deputy Opposition leader Jarrod Bleijie claims the nuclear energy debate is “many years” away as he focuses on lowering power prices in the immediate future.

Mr Bleijie said he is focusing on making sure energy is affordable and reliable as the Opposition pushes to bring its coal power stations back online.

“There is a lot of water to go under that bridge before that is the case and I suspect we will be at an election before our federal counterparts,” Mr Bleijie told Sky News Australia.

“I stood at the booths in Ipswich West and Inala and every second person was talking about the cost of living crisis in Queensland now.

“People are hurting, they need to see their electricity bills reduced now and that has to be our priority.”

March 19, 2024 Posted by | politics, Queensland | Leave a comment

How Biden’s budget plunged the Aukus submarines pact into doubt

Alarm in Australia as the US suddenly struggles to fortify its own fleet

Matt Oliver, INDUSTRY EDITOR, 18 March 2024 

 A year on from the trio’s meeting, the Aukus partnership is suddenly
looking decidedly more fragile. Inside defence circles, there are growing
doubts about America’s ability and willingness to deliver following a
shock proposal from the Biden administration that cuts to the heart of the
deal.

Amid a row at home over government budgets, the White House this
month suggested halving the number of Virginia-class submarines it builds
next year – the very same type it has promised to Australia under Aukus.
That means the US faces a shortfall itself, raising the prospect it may
refuse to sell its existing vessels and leave Canberra in the lurch.

 Telegraph 18th March 2024

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/03/18/biden-budget-aukus-nuclear-submarine-doubt-uk-australia

March 19, 2024 Posted by | weapons and war | Leave a comment

100,000 years and counting: how do we tell future generations about highly radioactive nuclear waste repositories?

Sweden and Finland have described KBS-3 as a world-first nuclear-waste management solution.

Critical questions remain about the storage method, however. There have been widely publicised concerns in Sweden about the corrosion of test copper canisters after just a few decades. This is worrying, to say the least, because it’s based on a principle of passive safety. The storage sites will be constructed, the canisters filled and sealed, and then everything will be left in the ground without any human monitoring its safe functioning and with no technological option for retrieving it. Yet, over 100,000 years the prospect of human or non-human intrusion into the site – both accidental or intentional – remains a serious threat.

International attention is increasingly fixated on “impactful” short-term responses to environmental problems – usually limited to the lifespan of two or three future generations of human life. Yet the nature of long-lived nuclear waste requires us to imagine and care for a future well beyond that time horizon, and perhaps even beyond the existence of humanity.

International attention is increasingly fixated on “impactful” short-term responses to environmental problems – usually limited to the lifespan of two or three future generations of human life. Yet the nature of long-lived nuclear waste requires us to imagine and care for a future well beyond that time horizon, and perhaps even beyond the existence of humanity.

March 19, 2024 Thomas Keating. Postdoctoral Researcher, Linköping University, Anna Storm, Professor of Technology and Social Change, Linköping University https://theconversation.com/100-000-years-and-counting-how-do-we-tell-future-generations-about-highly-radioactive-nuclear-waste-repositories-199441

In Europe, increasing efforts on climate change mitigation, a sudden focus on energy independence after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and reported breakthroughs in nuclear fusion have sparked renewed interest in the potential of nuclear power. So-called small modular reactors (SMRs) are increasingly under development, and familiar promises about nuclear power’s potential are being revived.

Nuclear power is routinely portrayed by proponents as the source of “limitless” amounts of carbon-free electricity. The rhetorical move from speaking about “renewable energy” to “fossil-free energy” is increasingly evident, and telling.

Yet nuclear energy production requires managing what is known as “spent” nuclear fuel where major problems arise about how best to safeguard these waste materials into the future – especially should nuclear energy production increase. Short-term storage facilities have been in place for decades, but the question of their long-term deposition has caused intense political debates, with a number of projects being delayed or cancelled entirely. In the United States, work on the Yucca Mountain facility has stopped completely leaving the country with 93 nuclear reactors and no long-term storage site for the waste they produce.

Nuclear power plants produce three kinds of radioactive waste:

  • Short-lived low- and intermediate-level waste;
  • Long-lived low- and intermediate-level waste;
  • Long-lived and highly radioactive waste, known as spent nuclear fuel.

The critical challenge for nuclear energy production is the management of long-lived waste, which refers to nuclear materials that take thousands of years to return to a level of radioactivity that is deemed “safe”. According to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), in spent fuel half of the radiation in strontium-90 and cesium-137 can decay in 30 years, while it would take 24,000 years for plutonium-239 to return to a state considered “harmless”. However, exactly what is meant by “safe” and “harmless” in this context is something that remains poorly defined by international nuclear management organisations, and there is surprisingly little international consensus about the time it takes for radioactive waste to return to a state considered “safe” for organic life.

“Permanent” geological repositories

Despite the seeming revival of nuclear energy production today, very few of the countries that produce nuclear energy have defined a long-term strategy for managing highly radioactive spent fuel into the future. Only Finland and Sweden have confirmed plans for so-called “final” or “permanent” geological repositories.

The Swedish government granted approval for a final repository in the village of Forsmark in January 2022, with plans to construct, fill and seal the facility over the next century. This repository is designed to last 100,000 years, which is how long planners say that it will take to return to a level of radioactivity comparable to uranium found in the earth’s bedrock.

Finland is well underway in the construction of its Onkalo high-level nuclear waste repository, which they began building in 2004 with plans to seal their facility by the end of the 21st century.

The technological method that Finland and Sweden plan to use in their permanent repositories is referred to as KBS-3 storage. In this method, spent nuclear fuel is encased in cast iron, which is then placed inside copper canisters, which are then surrounded by clay and bedrock approximately 500 metres below ground. The same or similar methods are being considered by other countries, such as the United Kingdom.

Sweden and Finland have described KBS-3 as a world-first nuclear-waste management solution. It is the product of decades of scientific research and negotiation with stakeholders, in particular with the communities that will eventually live near the buried waste.

Critical questions remain about the storage method, however. There have been widely publicised concerns in Sweden about the corrosion of test copper canisters after just a few decades. This is worrying, to say the least, because it’s based on a principle of passive safety. The storage sites will be constructed, the canisters filled and sealed, and then everything will be left in the ground without any human monitoring its safe functioning and with no technological option for retrieving it. Yet, over 100,000 years the prospect of human or non-human intrusion into the site – both accidental or intentional – remains a serious threat.

The Key Information File

Another major problem is how to communicate the presence of buried nuclear waste to future generations. If spent fuel remains dangerous for 100,000 years, then clearly this is a time frame where languages can disappear and where the existence of humanity cannot be guaranteed. Transferring information about these sites into the future is a sizeable task that demands expertise and collaboration internationally across the social sciences and sciences into practices of nuclear waste memory transfer – what we refer to as nuclear memory communication.

In a project commissioned by the Swedish Nuclear Waste Management Company (SKB), we take up this precise task by writing the “Key Information File” – a document aimed at non-expert readers containing only the most essential information about Sweden’s nuclear waste repository under development.

The Key Information File has been formulated as a summary document that would help future readers understand the dangers posed by buried waste. Its purpose is to guide the reader to where they can find more detailed information about the repository – acting as a “key” to other archives and forms of nuclear memory communication until the site’s closure at the end of the 21st century. What happens to the Key Information File after this time is undecided, yet communicating the information that it contains to future generations is crucial.

The Key Information File we will publish in 2024 is intended to be securely stored at the entrance to the nuclear waste repository in Sweden, as well as at the National Archives in Stockholm. To ensure its durability and survival through time, the plan is for it to be reproduced in different media formats and translated into multiple languages. The initial version is in English and, when finalised, it will be translated into Swedish and other languages that have yet to be decided.

Our aim is for the file to be updated every 10 years to ensure that essential information is correct and that it remains understandable to a wide audience. We also see the need for the file to be incorporated into other intergenerational practices of knowledge transfer in the future – from its inclusion into educational syllabi in schools, to the use of graphic design and artwork to make the document distinctive and memorable, to the formation of international networks of Key Information File writing and storage in countries where, at the time of writing, decisions have not yet been made about how to store highly radioactive long-lived nuclear waste.

Fragility and short-termism: a great irony

In the process of writing the Key Information File, we have discovered many issues surrounding the efficacy of these strategies for communicating memory of nuclear waste repositories into the future. One is the remarkable fragility of programs and institutions – on more than one occasion in recent years, it has taken just one person to retire from a nuclear organisation for the knowledge of an entire programme of memory communication to be halted or even lost.

And if it is difficult to preserve and communicate crucial information even in the short term, what chance do we have over 100,000 years?

International attention is increasingly fixated on “impactful” short-term responses to environmental problems – usually limited to the lifespan of two or three future generations of human life. Yet the nature of long-lived nuclear waste requires us to imagine and care for a future well beyond that time horizon, and perhaps even beyond the existence of humanity.

Responding to these challenges, even partially, requires governments and research funders internationally to provide the capacity for long-term intergenerational research on these and related issues. It also demands care in developing succession plans for retiring experts to ensure their institutional knowledge and expertise is not lost. In Sweden, this could also mean committing long-term funding from the Swedish nuclear waste fund so that not only future technical problems with the waste deposition are tackled, but also future societal problems of memory and information transfer can be addressed by people with appropriate capacity and expertise.

March 19, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | , , , , | Leave a comment

Concerns and complaints continue as fourth Fukushima wastewater discharge completed

 https://news.cgtn.com/news/2024-03-18/Concerns-continue-as-fourth-Fukushima-wastewater-discharge-completed-1s4JAJ539w4/p.html

Concerns and complaints from home and abroad remain while Japan’s crippled Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant has finished its first year of discharging nuclear-contaminated wastewater into the ocean.

The plant completed its fourth and final round of discharge for the current fiscal year, which ends in March, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) said on Sunday.

As per the initial plan, approximately 31,200 tonnes of wastewater containing radioactive tritium has been released into the ocean since August 2023, with each discharge running for about two weeks.

Earlier this week, International Atomic Energy Agency Director-General Rafael Grossi emphasized continued efforts to monitor the discharging process.

Stressing that the discharge marks merely the initial phase of a long process, Grossi said that “much effort will be required in the lengthy process ahead,” and reiterated the organization’s stance on maintaining vigilance throughout the process.

While the Japanese government and TEPCO have asserted the safety and necessity of the process, there are still concerns from other countries and local stakeholders regarding environmental impacts.

Sophia from the U.S. complained that the release of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea made her fear for the future.

Najee Johnson, a college student from Canada, suggested the Japanese government find a different plan because it could pollute our ocean and harm our sea life.

Haruo Ono, a fisherman in the town of Shinchi in Fukushima, said “All fishermen are against ocean dumping. The contaminated water has flowed into what we fishermen call ‘the sea of treasure’, and the process will last for at least 30 years.”

“Is it really necessary, in the first place, to dump what has been stored in tanks into the sea? How can we say it’s ‘safe’ when the discharged water clearly consists of harmful radioactive substances? I think the government and TEPCO must provide a solid answer,” said Chiyo Oda, a resident of Fukushima’s Iwaki city.

The recent leakage of contaminated water from pipes at the Fukushima plant also fueled concerns among the Japanese public.

Besides, the promised fund of more than 100 billion yen (around $670 million) to compensate and support local fishermen and fishing industry remains doubtful as a court ruling last December relieved the government of responsibility to pay damages to Fukushima evacuees.

A Tokyo court ruled that only the operator of the tsunami-wrecked Fukushima nuclear power plant has to pay damages to the evacuees, relieving the government of responsibility. Plaintiffs criticized the ruling as belittling their suffering and the severity of the disaster. The court also slashed the amount by ordering the TEPCO to pay a total of 23.5 million yen to 44 of the 47 plaintiffs.

The ruling backpedaled from an earlier decision in March 2018, when the Tokyo District Court held both the government and TEPCO accountable for the disaster, which the ruling said could have been prevented if they both took better precautionary measures, ordering both to pay 59 million yen in damages.

March 19, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | , , , , | Leave a comment

TODAY. Nuclear power and the ignorance of journalists – it’s almost criminal.

I’d like to believe that it is just ignorance – the way journalists complacently regurgitate the lying propaganda vomited forth by the nuclear industry.

And to be fair – I really do think that it is the result of journalists’ ignorance, rather than a cynical “knowing which side is their bread buttered on” – (where the money is)

Why are journalists SO IGNORANT ABOUT THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY?

I think it goes back to the industry’s traditional and very effective ploy :

– “only nuclear engineers can really understand it“

This meant that any discussion or reporting would have to be enshrined in technical jargon, impenetrable to the normal person. The nuclear lobby made sure of this, although the facts and various aspects could well be discussed in normal language. Nuclear experts could have chosen to make it clearly – for example Albert Einstein did –  “Nuclear power is one hell of a way to boil water.”

This ploy has worked well over the decades, causing journalists to be wary about possibly saying something inaccurate or silly. Their safest course has indeed been to just regurgitate the industry’s handouts, including the approving comments by politicians etc (who are supported by the industry, and who themselves know little about it)

Even today, it is rare to find nuclear matters clearly explained to the “lay person”

You do find articles on the costs of nuclear, the opponents of it, – but not much on how it works, what the wastes actually are, and so on.

It was refreshing today, to find an article from France, explaining “fast breeder reactors” – reprocessing, as in Bill Gates’ much touted new Natrium reactor plan . That article was written by a journalist who has taken the trouble to do his research.

The nuclear lobby still prefers to do its media spin via articles handed out in their own obscurantist language. You don’t need to be a nuclear engineer or physicist to do your research. But it takes time and trouble and asking the hard questions.

Journalists are either too lazy or too bought to do this. Easier to regurgitate.

But with nuclear war an ever more looming possibility, it is definitely time for journalists to woke up and do their homework on the industry whose reason for existence is nuclear weapons.

March 18, 2024 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »